Viewing Thread:
"There Goes My Hero, Watch Him as he Goes"

Two rants in as many weeks? Being loved up and eerily happy to a degree I didn't think anthropologically possible clearly agrees with me...

We in the UK have a defining national characteristic that confuses the hell out of me. It's something that we're all aware of and that we all partake in, and I can't decide if it means that we're an embittered nation, or that we simply refuse to respect those whom we are assured are our betters. I'm referring to our great national pastime of building up our heroes before knocking them right back down again.

Oddly it was the Beckham 'scandal' about his allegedly naughty behavior with his PA, Rebecca Loos that got me thinking about this. Once I'd calmed down from my standard "we're living in a world run by a powerful and greedy elite who are making war without any consideration for how it affects ordinary people, yet we're content to let ourselves be diverted by THIS sloppy panda poo of a story?!" position that I always take about frivolous news items (a position which, although I still agree with, sort of indicates just how much I needed to lighten up), I actually started to feel rather sorry for Goldenballs.

I should qualify that; the man has basically consented to be used as a market brand and, although it's making him obscene amounts of cash, it's making his sponsors and advertisers rather more. He's handed over his life to the public domain, and if you live by the sword you die by the sword when it comes to publicity and selling yourself via the media. However, even with all that in mind I was more than a little sympathetic towards him. Why? Well, because the main tone taken by tabloid journalists was that Beckham had let down the people (mainly the children) who idolise and look up to him.

Now maybe this is just me, but how exactly did he let anyone down? By rutting with a bisexual nymphomaniac with a filthy mind and highly developed bedroom skills? Who did he let down by doing that, because surely that's a class above emptying himself up a talentless, vain, bulimic babyprovider with a face like Dutch elm disease. As near as I can tell, he was being criticised for setting a bad example to the precious children of the world. Apparently "millions of kids look up to Beckham; what kind of lesson does it teach them when their hero cheats on his wife?" (although one could say he's teaching them not to marry a Prada-bedecked ghost train skeleton).

So then; that's the answer to the soaring divorce rate in the UK. It's all the fault of David Beckham. Glad we've got that one cleared up. I confidently expect to find that, if he puts on a few pounds, he'll be to blame for the rise in obesity in children. Doubtless Labour’ll soon blame him for increasing voter apathy in elections. Maybe we'll see him cited as the reason for domestic violence next (of course, if he does take it into his head to batter his wife into a bloody smear on the wall, he'd almost certainly get a knighthood).

This is, of course, complete and utter camelbollocks. I don't deny that Beckham is an idol to millions, but to say that his actions will be reflected by his legion of admirers is rather like saying that we're a society so devoid of individuality and ideas that we're content to try and turn our children into clones of anodyne, soulless clones of supposedly perfect people. Unfortunately, it seems that that's exactly what this society is doing.

What do I mean by that? Well, firstly I want to look at how we view heroes in the first place. This little scandal seemed to me to say that if someone is a hero to millions, then those millions should try and emulate that person exactly. They should give up any vestiges of their own personality and identity in order to try and become their hero (and alas, with the number of brainbubblingly poor girlbands that make up the pop industry these days, anyone who knows their way around a football pitch will probably consider a member of Liberty X as their birthright). Then the same tabloids that criticise Beckham for having "let down his fans" run a story about the "evil freak" that is stalking Britney/Xtina/{Insert name of Pop Tart here}.

Even leaving aside the standard media hypocrisy of encouraging people to worship celebrities whilst demonising those whose lives are so empty that they stalk the object of their obsessions, it seems to me that we've got our treatment of heroes all wrong. Yes, a hero is someone to look up to and emulate. But a hero is not someone whom we should expect absolute perfection in every conceivable way from; they're simply someone who sets an example to us to live our life in a particular way. OUR life, not a bland Xeroxed copy of the hero's life. So, for example, my biggest hero in life is Bill Hicks and I try to emulate him in key areas of my life. However, I don't share his philosophy on relationships for example. Nor do I allow my adulation of him to dictate exactly what my opinions are; unlike him, I don't believe that a UFO will come down and rescue me from planet earth to educate and enlighten me about our place in the cosmos (by the way, Hicks did an extraordinary amount of hallucinogens which I think sort of explains his UFO beliefs...).

What my hero-worship of Hicks amounts to is that I'm compelled to speak my mind, tell the truth, and stand up for my beliefs. Beckham is a footballer, so why should anyone’s adulation of him go beyond "I want to be a good footballer"? Why in the name of Christ should he be a role model for the perfect family life? He's a multi millionaire; who can reasonably expect to have a family life involving shopping trips to Milan, villas in 5 countries, and a disposable income so vast that looks like it should be stated as a physics? No-one is criticising him for setting a bad example by giving people false hope of impossible dreams, so why criticise him for something done by depressingly large numbers of people anyway?

Well, because we'll criticise anything and anyone if it means we don't have to acknowledge that the society in which we live has some major flaws in it. Don't want to acknowledge our hypocrisy in marketing youth and young women as being sexually attractive whilst jumping up and down in a frenzied rage about paedophiles? (Of which the finest example has to be the Daily Mail running an article on 15-year-old Charlotte Church having a nice ass, whilst on the opposite page an article about protecting our kids from Paedogeddon screamed out at us) Simple; just blame pornography. Upset that house prices are rising and wages are still low? Then blame immigrants. Don't fancy acknowledging that the failure of the model of an ideal family is losing relevance in the modern western world? No problem, just blame celebrities and say that their infidelity is bringing down western civilisation.

If we want our oh-so-valuable children to grow up to be good footballers, Beckham is as good a role model as any. If we want them to be angry and paranoid middle class white men, Bill Hicks is your chap. If we want them to grow up to be faithful to their partners, tolerant of differences in others, determined, hard working, compassionate, brave, and decent then maybe we should look at ourselves and start closer to home. After all, we can't blame celebrities for everything. However amusing it is to do so.

Notorious Biggles wrote:
> My father is a secondary school teacher. He's tried teaching people.
> It doesn't work. 90% don't aspire to anything at all. That's why he
> often describes himself as a prison warden rather than a teacher.

And that is why I'm saying society needs to change in order to facilitate greater education among the general population. The current system doesn't work? Then change it. Systems are easier to change than people, but you won't change the latter without changing the former
For the record, my mother was a teacher before retiring. My Dad was a policeman. So I too have a background similar to yours.

>
> Obviously things in the affluent areas are different, but in the
> deprived area where his school is, they don't want to work hard and
> be successful. They would never dream of anything like that. No, to
> them success is being able to swindle the DSS out of a few more quid
> a week.

Mm, cos God knows it's annoying when they don't stick to mind-numbing jobs that actually leave them in a worse financial position than they'd be in if they didn't work.

Obviously, there are people who ARE as bad as you say. However, I think it's rather a sweeping generalisation to say they ALL are.

>
> It doesn't matter how many times you show them how things could be
> different, nothing really changes. That's why there is so much
> truancy, that is why in a class of 14/15 year olds only one had never
> tried drugs and why and entire class of 13 year olds had been drunk.
> They just want short term "pleasure", not to work at
> anything for the long term or to achieve.

Nothing really changes? What, ever? I think what you mean is "nothing changes in my lifetime so far". If nothing changed, we'd be living in caves and eating raw meat (not such a bad thing). To say nothing changes is a fantastically arrogant statement, not to mention incredibly selective; want to compare literacy rates now than with, say, 100 years ago?

>
> Thousands of years of human history have shown that the only way to
> change things is by brute force or to invent a better way of doing
> something. Talk never works. It never will.

Erm...so education is just talk?

Anyway, did I say I wanted just talk? No; I said I wanted society to change. As to how that happens...well, time will tell. But if one doesn't talk about something, then that something will never come to pass, will it?

Incidentally, thousands of years of human history have also taught us that some of the finest minds humanity has to offer come from the extreme lower end of the social spectrum. Something to bear in mind before dismissing all of them.

Notorious Biggles wrote:

> And the alternative is? That's right; there isn't one. Create an
> alternative, then we'll talk about what is and isn't possible.
>
> Do you drive a souped up Nova? Do you wear Burberry and trackie
> bottoms and go off on clubbing holidays?

No I don't. But then, I come from an affluent middle class background and wouldn't know financial hardship if it bumraped me at a dinner party.

>
> Unless I judged you completely wrong, then no you don't. There's an
> alternative.

Cool. All we need to do is give the mountain of chavs and neds some decent parents, a middle class background, and access to exactly the same advantages I had. Change society in other words. Which is exactly what I'm suggesting.

Light wrote:
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
> They want to
> drive souped up Nova's, wear Burberry and go on holiday to Faliraki.
>
> And the alternative is? That's right; there isn't one. Create an
> alternative, then we'll talk about what is and isn't possible.

Do you drive a souped up Nova? Do you wear Burberry and trackie bottoms and go off on clubbing holidays?

Unless I judged you completely wrong, then no you don't. There's an alternative.

My father is a secondary school teacher. He's tried teaching people. It doesn't work. 90% don't aspire to anything at all. That's why he often describes himself as a prison warden rather than a teacher.

Obviously things in the affluent areas are different, but in the deprived area where his school is, they don't want to work hard and be successful. They would never dream of anything like that. No, to them success is being able to swindle the DSS out of a few more quid a week.

It doesn't matter how many times you show them how things could be different, nothing really changes. That's why there is so much truancy, that is why in a class of 14/15 year olds only one had never tried drugs and why and entire class of 13 year olds had been drunk. They just want short term "pleasure", not to work at anything for the long term or to achieve.

Thousands of years of human history have shown that the only way to change things is by brute force or to invent a better way of doing something. Talk never works. It never will.

Notorious Biggles wrote:
> Educating them doesn't work. They don't want to learn.

How in the hell do you know? No-one has ever tried. We were told at the turn of the century that it was pointless to give women the vote because it was a matter that was beyond them. Same goes for when voting was extended to the working class. Look, I know you're mainly being flippant here but saying "this will never happen" is a pretty sweeping statement. History is littered with people who said it. And without exception, we now laugh at those people.

> They want to
> drive souped up Nova's, wear Burberry and go on holiday to Faliraki.

And the alternative is? That's right; there isn't one. Create an alternative, then we'll talk about what is and isn't possible.

Notorious Biggles wrote:
> In Glasgow we have the slightly more despicable ned.
> [URL]http://www.glasgowsurvival.co.uk[/URL].

Are you oroborous? This is almost exactly the same post as on another board I sometings visit.

[edit] No, my fault. I'm not with it today. Ignore.

Educating them doesn't work. They don't want to learn. They want to drive souped up Nova's, wear Burberry and go on holiday to Faliraki. It's a waste of time and money trying to change anything. A wise old man once told me that "The reason we have so many neds and criminals is that we don't have good enough wars anymore. No more can we give them a uniform, a drink and a speech on fighting for king and country before sending them over the top." He was probably onto something there.

In Glasgow we have the slightly more despicable ned. [URL]http://www.glasgowsurvival.co.uk[/URL].

Notorious Biggles wrote:

>
> But your point really was about how it is an almost quintessentially
> British trait to knock celebrities down in the media.

Initially yes. As I wrote it, the point became (as with most of my ranting) that our society is rather screwed and the celebrity worship leading to suppression of the self is a symptom of this.

> In the absence of much else to occupy dull,
> stupid and unimaginitive people in this country, of course they need
> something extra in their lives.

Which is pretty much my main point; we need to look at ourselves and our lives in order to improve society.

As to the snobbery (and that's genuinely not a criticism of you; I'm pretty much the same), I'm starting to believe the rather naive notion that if you live in a land of dull, stupid, and unimaginative people then every effort should be made to educate them rather than tell them how they should live.

That said, I really ****ing hate chavs...

But for the card carrying members of the celebrity lovers club it is fun to knock people like that. It is part of their life to worship celebrities and the rich and famous and to talk about them and to name their children after them.

That's why we end up with Pop Idol and Big Brother. Because far too many people, not just in this country, have such frivolous little lives that they simply don't have anything else to do with their life. They don't have anything real to believe in or to fight for. I've never yet known a member of Greenpeace who reads Hello. They have something in their life.

That isn't to say that these people are all welfare cheats without jobs. Many do. But if I did something as intellectually void as say receptionist then I'd probably end up needing something like celebrititis in my life as well. And from the outside it's like a light to a fly. So pretty, so happy, so different from reality for most. So fake is they way I look at it.

But your point really was about how it is an almost quintessentially British trait to knock celebrities down in the media. And you are right, rarely do you get such venom else where. But then elsewhere normally the weather is good enough to nip off to the beach for a spot of surfing, or petrol is a whole lot cheaper and so people can spontaneously drive to New Mexico without arranging a personal loan from Lombard Direct. Or they don't live in rip off Britain and so just go shopping instead. In the absence of much else to occupy dull, stupid and unimaginitive people in this country, of course they need something extra in their lives.

Ha! Tricked you.
Actually, most of my rants have song lyrics as their titles. An obvious conceit, but it keeps me amused.